public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 16:36:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20030203163601.4353.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw) The following reply was made to PR c/9072; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> Cc: 128950@bugs.debian.org, <agthorr@barsoom.org>, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <segher@koffie.nl>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org> Subject: Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:31:41 -0600 (CST) On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but > > seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery... > > The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It > is established procedure [0] that patches failing to follow the standards > adequately get ignored. Sorry, don't flame me :-) I am just trying to find ways to get patch submitters and potential reviewers together. The bug database is full with reports that have patches attached. If nobody with the ability to judge things takes a look at them, then they will remain open forever. I'm just trying to spark discussion on them. Every once in a while I succeed to get a patch into CVS this way. I think that's better than just letting them sleep. > [0] This is very bad procedure; ignoring patches rather than explaining > what is wrong is far too likely to lose potential contributors. Exactly. If there's someone with little knowledge of gcc processes who manages to find a patch that then never gets any attention, he's not likely to try again next time. If he does get feedback, and be it only that the patch is basically that it is ok but a Changelog entry missing and that the ChangeLog format is described at XYZ, then that'll motivate people. I do understand why this is so, but we're doing badly in this field! Regards Wolfgang PS: Segher - I think the idea of this PR is right, and I would certainly appreciate if you could submit a patch! Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-03 16:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2003-02-03 16:36 Wolfgang Bangerth [this message] -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2003-02-03 2:36 Agthorr 2003-02-03 2:06 Segher Boessenkool 2003-02-03 0:16 Joseph S. Myers 2003-02-02 22:54 bangerth 2002-12-29 4:06 Joseph S. Myers 2002-12-29 1:06 Zack Weinberg 2002-12-29 0:56 Segher Boessenkool 2002-12-29 0:46 Zack Weinberg 2002-12-28 22:16 Segher Boessenkool 2002-12-27 15:36 Matthias Klose
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20030203163601.4353.qmail@sources.redhat.com \ --to=bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu \ --cc=gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=nobody@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).